| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action 16:13 - Jul 21 with 21980 views | Vetchfielder |
I’ve reviewed the Consultation Papers that arrived today and they are well presented and clear. Personally I could have added a couple more lines to the Pro’s section for legal action but it is specifically it is the aspect of legal fees in the Consultation Papers has left me with major gripes.
The first thing is that we don’t seem to have got a quotation or even an estimate of the legal costs of going ahead with legal action. If we did get a quotation or estimate then it has not been included in the documentation. Has the Trust Board asked for an estimate, was one provided and what are the details ?
What about a "No-Win / No-Fee" type of legal engagement— mentioned by Dai Little in the first Trust meeting yet I can see no mention of this in the documentation?
Regarding the magnitude of legal costs, the words we are given are:
(a) In the Options Matrix, Impact on Trust Funds section: “Likely substantial reduction, possibly wiped out completely, or worse”.
(b) In the Cons section of Option 2: “Legal action is costly and unpredictable. There is a real chance the Trust could lose, in which case the existing funds of over £800,000 could be wiped out or even lead to the Trust being in debt. If legal costs were to exceed the current Trust funds, which is a likely scenario, it is unclear at this time how the Trust would be able to fund these costs — which may impact the Trust’s ability to proceed beyond that point”.
Regarding (a), no detail is provided as to exactly what “worse” means in practical terms and how we would deal with it.
Also, there is a big contradiction between funds “possibly” wiped out in (a) and a “likely” scenario of debt in (b) which means it’s probable. So I don’t know whether the Trust Board thinks it’s just possible or that it's probable and exactly on what that judgement is based.
For me, the really disappointing words here in (b) are “it is unclear at this time how the Trust would be able to fund these costs”. The Trust Board has known about the potential for legal action for many many months so has had more than ample time to take advice, have a clear view, have a plan and identify a proposed approach if the funds aren’t sufficient for legal action.
On the basis of these Papers, I feel that not enough effort has gone into establishing what litigation really means in £ terms of legal costs and how the Trust could/would fund it, possibly because we have been distracted by what the Trust Board consider an acceptable offer. |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |  |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:12 - Jul 24 with 1943 views | Jackattack16 |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:07 - Jul 24 by PozuelosSideys |
Youre not even a member of the Trust. Shh |
Doesn't matter. We are talking about issues that affect the club. You seem to intimate the Trust Board have experience in this sort of thing, but they don't. I think that is probably important to point out. |  | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:13 - Jul 24 with 1941 views | Uxbridge |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:02 - Jul 24 by PozuelosSideys |
Cheers
Would i be correct in assuming the Trust's position is more of the risk averse "safety first" approach?
Whereas litigation is the pressing of the big red meltdown button option of a huge gamble? |
I'm not sure there's one consistent view on the Trust board why voting in favour of the offer above the other two options. All have their risks in different ways, and all provide differing benefits.
No doubt legal action is the more disruptive option, and that may be a factor for some. That's not a concern in itself for me ... Have to look at what's in the best interests of the Trust after all.
Everything has to be looked at in its entirety IMO. Can't just look at the risks, or just the benefits, because each option has plenty of both. |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:17 - Jul 24 with 1922 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:13 - Jul 24 by Uxbridge |
I'm not sure there's one consistent view on the Trust board why voting in favour of the offer above the other two options. All have their risks in different ways, and all provide differing benefits.
No doubt legal action is the more disruptive option, and that may be a factor for some. That's not a concern in itself for me ... Have to look at what's in the best interests of the Trust after all.
Everything has to be looked at in its entirety IMO. Can't just look at the risks, or just the benefits, because each option has plenty of both. |
I think Nookiejack made a point on here over the weekend. Should the membership vote in favour of litigation, then its assumed this would give the Trust more leverage in negotiations. It's felt that this would possibly bring the Americans back to the table with a better offer than what is currently being proposed.
Is there any additional info on this scenario, or is it just guesswork and conjecture as it stands? |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:19 - Jul 24 with 1919 views | E20Jack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:10 - Jul 24 by PozuelosSideys |
Well compared to tanking all the Trusts funds and losing the litigation, yes it is. |
Which is why the upside of that is that top QC's have said is the least likely outcome of the case. And the benefit of winning is by far the biggest "pro" of any of the options.
As opposed to taking the deal for an amount of money that achieves nothing and having the risk of the Trusts shares being sold from under our feet at any time, for an amount we have no control over and to who we have no control over? Doesn't sound very safe to me. Coukd be booted out of the club within the year with no shares and not enough money to ever have any influence ever again.
Happy voting. |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:23 - Jul 24 with 1907 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:19 - Jul 24 by E20Jack |
Which is why the upside of that is that top QC's have said is the least likely outcome of the case. And the benefit of winning is by far the biggest "pro" of any of the options.
As opposed to taking the deal for an amount of money that achieves nothing and having the risk of the Trusts shares being sold from under our feet at any time, for an amount we have no control over and to who we have no control over? Doesn't sound very safe to me. Coukd be booted out of the club within the year with no shares and not enough money to ever have any influence ever again.
Happy voting. |
This is what im trying to understand my friend. It depends where a persons starting point is, some will vote with heart, some will vote with head.
Stay on your feet. There is still time to ask plenty of questions and dig around on here and elsewhere before jumping straight in! | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:34 - Jul 24 with 1890 views | Uxbridge |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:17 - Jul 24 by PozuelosSideys |
I think Nookiejack made a point on here over the weekend. Should the membership vote in favour of litigation, then its assumed this would give the Trust more leverage in negotiations. It's felt that this would possibly bring the Americans back to the table with a better offer than what is currently being proposed.
Is there any additional info on this scenario, or is it just guesswork and conjecture as it stands? |
It's pure guesswork.
We can't know how they'd react to a vote in favour of legal action. Nookie could be right and they'd be straight back with a better offer. He could be wrong, and they say sod this we'll let the courts decide. I wouldn't like to call that. | |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:34 - Jul 24 with 1884 views | headcleaner |
Out of interest. in the letter sent out, it says that the trust board recommends accepting the offer blah blah blah. Is it possible to find out who voted in favour and who voted against or was it a unanimous clean sweep?
Option 2 all the way. Might not even get to court as the Mericans and Jenkins might not want to play chicken and have their dirty laundry washed in public and come back with another option. Jenkins to stand down with immediate effect. All other douche bags to hand over their remaining blood money shares to the trust and to cease all perks with immediate effect inc tickets, directors box freebies on match day and public apology for their part in the sale. Sad times that the fans deserve to win not the directors. |  | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:47 - Jul 24 with 1856 views | AguycalledJack |
Intend reading the consultation papers tonight.
However, negotiation is a 2 way street. What offers have the trust made to the club/Americans?
May be in the consultation papers but as I say, I intend reading tonight. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 18:12 - Jul 24 with 1792 views | phact0rri |
just out of curiosity, how large are these papers? As an 'overseas' member they are supposed to be getting them to us (I expect a digital version) soon, but I wonder how I will be able to flip through them myself. Also it doesn't sound like there's much substance involved if we don't even know what a legal set up would really look like. Does it go through legal options, or is it more of a binary report? |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 19:01 - Jul 24 with 1755 views | Vetchfielder |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 18:12 - Jul 24 by phact0rri |
just out of curiosity, how large are these papers? As an 'overseas' member they are supposed to be getting them to us (I expect a digital version) soon, but I wonder how I will be able to flip through them myself. Also it doesn't sound like there's much substance involved if we don't even know what a legal set up would really look like. Does it go through legal options, or is it more of a binary report? |
There's a 5 page introductory summary letter, 6 page Pro's and Con's of each option and a 3 page table (in landscape) summarising the options. All should be ok to read on electronic copy except the table which I think you'd need to print off.
It's a matter of opinion as to whether it goes through the legal options; my original post highlights areas where, in my opinion, I don't think it does. | |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 13:20 - Jul 27 with 1657 views | cockneyswan |
First rule of seeking compensation , never accept first offer, therefore vote litigation, yanks will be back. |  | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 13:42 - Jul 27 with 1634 views | MattG |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 13:20 - Jul 27 by cockneyswan |
First rule of seeking compensation , never accept first offer, therefore vote litigation, yanks will be back. |
It's not the first offer, though.
Just the first offer that the Trust Board felt was worth presenting to the Members. [Post edited 27 Jul 2017 13:53]
|  | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:02 - Jul 27 with 1603 views | cockneyswan |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 13:42 - Jul 27 by MattG |
It's not the first offer, though.
Just the first offer that the Trust Board felt was worth presenting to the Members. [Post edited 27 Jul 2017 13:53]
|
First offer to the members. What are the other offers then? I haven't see any previous offers. This is the only official offer on the table. Everything else is rumour. Vote litigation and see where it goes, these matters have a lot more mileage yet. | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:06 - Jul 27 with 1590 views | NeathJack |
 |  | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:32 - Jul 27 with 1559 views | Meraki |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:06 - Jul 27 by NeathJack |
|
Same here, I found it interesting the way it was carefully set out as well. | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:42 - Jul 27 with 1537 views | NeathJack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:32 - Jul 27 by Meraki |
Same here, I found it interesting the way it was carefully set out as well. |
Yep. It seemed to be very much giving precedence to the deal offered over the other two options imho. | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:43 - Jul 27 with 1535 views | cockneyswan |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:32 - Jul 27 by Meraki |
Same here, I found it interesting the way it was carefully set out as well. |
Yes after reading all the options , I definitely feld board are pushing non litigation option which I'm disappointed at as I feel there should be no biased opinions in the info. | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:07 - Jul 27 with 1474 views | Uxbridge |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 14:43 - Jul 27 by cockneyswan |
Yes after reading all the options , I definitely feld board are pushing non litigation option which I'm disappointed at as I feel there should be no biased opinions in the info. |
It's only right the board provide a recommendation. Members would expect nothing less. However apart from that, some documents detailing the pros and cons in an unbiased (or at least the intention of) manner have been put together that for that purpose.
As for the question, I've said this before but I see it completely the opposite. There are at least 3 options here so you've got some options - a straight 3 way split, with the most votes winning, alternative vote, or the way it's been structured here. The way it's been structured here is the only way a majority voting for a particular option can be guaranteed.
If you're looking for bias in the structure of the ballot in favour of Option 1 then that makes no sense to me ... in this structure, it requires 50% in favour of the offer and has two other Options against it. There'll be some in favour of legal action, and some in favour of keeping the entire stake ... the offer needs a bigger majority than both constituents. Whichever option you put as the first question has a tougher gig in getting past IMO. [Post edited 27 Jul 2017 15:07]
| |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:14 - Jul 27 with 1441 views | NeathJack |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:07 - Jul 27 by Uxbridge |
It's only right the board provide a recommendation. Members would expect nothing less. However apart from that, some documents detailing the pros and cons in an unbiased (or at least the intention of) manner have been put together that for that purpose.
As for the question, I've said this before but I see it completely the opposite. There are at least 3 options here so you've got some options - a straight 3 way split, with the most votes winning, alternative vote, or the way it's been structured here. The way it's been structured here is the only way a majority voting for a particular option can be guaranteed.
If you're looking for bias in the structure of the ballot in favour of Option 1 then that makes no sense to me ... in this structure, it requires 50% in favour of the offer and has two other Options against it. There'll be some in favour of legal action, and some in favour of keeping the entire stake ... the offer needs a bigger majority than both constituents. Whichever option you put as the first question has a tougher gig in getting past IMO. [Post edited 27 Jul 2017 15:07]
|
Have any legal guarantees been given regarding the possibility of the Yanks selling the Delaware holding company that owns the majority stake in the club if they were to want to cash in, rather than them actually selling the shares in the club?
If not, and they are able to do this, does it not make the Trust shares in the club (whether that be the remaining shares after a partial sale or all the shares if nothing is done) completely worthless? | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:18 - Jul 27 with 1435 views | tomdickharry |
Whatever decision is reached there are 16000(E) non trust members who really couldn't careless. | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:23 - Jul 27 with 1425 views | cockneyswan |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:18 - Jul 27 by tomdickharry |
Whatever decision is reached there are 16000(E) non trust members who really couldn't careless. |
They might care if we reach another Tony Petty situation. | | | |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:24 - Jul 27 with 1424 views | monmouth |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:07 - Jul 27 by Uxbridge |
It's only right the board provide a recommendation. Members would expect nothing less. However apart from that, some documents detailing the pros and cons in an unbiased (or at least the intention of) manner have been put together that for that purpose.
As for the question, I've said this before but I see it completely the opposite. There are at least 3 options here so you've got some options - a straight 3 way split, with the most votes winning, alternative vote, or the way it's been structured here. The way it's been structured here is the only way a majority voting for a particular option can be guaranteed.
If you're looking for bias in the structure of the ballot in favour of Option 1 then that makes no sense to me ... in this structure, it requires 50% in favour of the offer and has two other Options against it. There'll be some in favour of legal action, and some in favour of keeping the entire stake ... the offer needs a bigger majority than both constituents. Whichever option you put as the first question has a tougher gig in getting past IMO. [Post edited 27 Jul 2017 15:07]
|
I haven't looked at the voting slips and arrangements yet, but in a nutshell, what happens if Option 1 scores 49% and Option 2 - Legal 30%; Option 2 Status Quo 21%? Sorry if obvious or previously answered. I'm consultationally punch drunk. |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:53 - Jul 27 with 1396 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
OOOFFFFF
Brexit all over again |  |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:55 - Jul 27 with 1391 views | Uxbridge |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:24 - Jul 27 by monmouth |
I haven't looked at the voting slips and arrangements yet, but in a nutshell, what happens if Option 1 scores 49% and Option 2 - Legal 30%; Option 2 Status Quo 21%? Sorry if obvious or previously answered. I'm consultationally punch drunk. |
That can't happen the way this is structured. It could have with a 3 way choice, which is why it didn't happen that way.
This way, something is getting 50%. Two questions, choose one from both. I can see various scenarios playing out there - there'll be people voting for the deal who, if that doesn't pass, also preferring legal action against maintaining the current stake. Similarly there'll be people against the deal who'll also be against legal action. [Post edited 27 Jul 2017 16:04]
| |
| |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 16:02 - Jul 27 with 1376 views | Uxbridge |
| Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action on 15:14 - Jul 27 by NeathJack |
Have any legal guarantees been given regarding the possibility of the Yanks selling the Delaware holding company that owns the majority stake in the club if they were to want to cash in, rather than them actually selling the shares in the club?
If not, and they are able to do this, does it not make the Trust shares in the club (whether that be the remaining shares after a partial sale or all the shares if nothing is done) completely worthless? |
There's no scenario where the Trust shareholding is completely worthless. It's a shame to see that old lie rear its head again.
If the tag along clause wasn't worth the paper its written on, which is effectively what you're asking, then I'd agree it would be pointless.
The legal documents haven't been drafted yet .. this is all subject to contract. If those documents weren't to the Trust's satisfaction (which, given the tag along clause is utterly crucial to the whole deal, this has to be watertight) then the contract could not complete.
In short, it's pretty difficult to comment on the details of a legal document that hasn't been drafted yet. However our legal advice doesn't have concerns on the theoretical concerns on being able to draft such a document. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
